Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Hazira Port Pvt Ltd vs Cgst & Central Excise Ahmedabad South on 3 June, 2025
Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad
REGIONAL BENCH-COURT NO. 3
Service Tax Appeal No. 13612 of 2013-DB
(Arising out of OIO-STC/25/COMMR/AHD/2013 dated 29/07/2013 passed by Commissioner
of Service Tax- Ahmedabad)
Hazira Port Pvt Ltd ...... Appellant
101-103, Abhijit-ii,
Mithakhali Circle,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat
VERSUS
Principal Commissioner, CGST &
Central Excise, Ahmedabad South ......Respondent
7th Floor, Central GST Bhavan, Nr. Polytechnic, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380015 APPEARANCE:
Shri Jigar Shah & Shri Amber Kumrawat, Advocate for the Appellant Shri H P Shrimali, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. SOMESH ARORA HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL), MR. SATENDRA VIKRAM SINGH Final Order No. 10452/2025 DATE OF HEARING: 03.06.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 03.06.2025 SOMESH ARORA The Learned Advocate, inter alia, while arguing in the matter pointed out that he had raised the issue that impugned premises which was considered as port was not a major port as per the definition of 'port' given in Section 65(81) of the Finance Act, 1994. This Section defines 'port' as having the meaning assigned to it in clause (q) of Section 2 of Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. Further he points out that under Clause (q) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, port has been defined only in terms of any major port as follows: - "Clause (q) "port" means any major port to which this Act applies within such limits as may, from time to time, be defined by the Central Government for the purposes of this Act by notification in the Official Gazette, and, until a notification is so issued, within such limits as may have been defined by the Central Government under the provisions of the Indian Ports Act."
2|Page ST/13612/2013-DB
2. It was his point of emphasis that the service which is not provided at 'major port' cannot come within the ambit of service tax ever, as per the statutory provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 read with the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. He points out that this issue goes to the root of the matter and was raised by him before the learned adjudicating authority. However, it has not received the attention it deserves, therefore, on such a vital issue the order is non-speaking one.
3. The learned AR fairly agrees that while various other submissions were considered, this issue has not received the attention of the learned Commissioner as far as want of detailed arguments are concerned. That he is unable to say anything on the statutory provisions as has been pointed out by the learned Advocate, as the same go beyond the purview of Finance Act, 1994.
4. We have gone through the provisions quoted by the learned Advocate.
We find that learned adjudicating authority should have considered if at the relevant time the impugned portion of land was a major port as per the statutory provisions. Since, this issue goes to the root of the matter, it needs to be decided with elaborate findings and in case the contention of the Advocate is acceptable, then the department's case cannot survive. We therefore, deem it fit to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue in detail and the whole appeal in the light of his findings. As far as learned Advocate is concerned, he shall be free to make legal submissions on this point with any other evidences indicating that at the relevant time, the portion of land impugned was not a major port, as per the definition borrowed under Finance Act, 1994. Matter is remanded with above directions.
3|Page ST/13612/2013-DB
5. Appeal allowed by way of remand in above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) (SOMESH ARORA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (SATENDRA VIKRAM SINGH) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Raksha